DFI's Jim Blew & Lynch's Katie Everett on Fed. Ed. Tax Credit in Blue States

The Learning Curve Katie Everett And Jim Blew

Alisha Searcy: [00:00:00] Welcome to the Learning Curve podcast. I’m your co-host, Alisha Thomas Searcy, and joined by our other co-host, Dr. Albert Chang. Albert, how are you?

Albert Cheng: Hey, Alisha. Doing good. Hope everyone else is, you know, if they celebrate Easter, hope they had a nice Easter or Passover, or whatever it is or nothing. Um, hope you’re all doing well.

Alisha Searcy: Yes, agreed. All of it is okay. Whatever you celebrate. I hope you’ve had some good food and time with family and friends over the last few days. How about that?

Albert Cheng: That’s right. Yep.

Alisha Searcy: Well, we’ve got an interesting show today on a topic that is always interesting for me, so I’m looking forward to that. And I [00:01:00] always like talking to Jim Blew.

Yeah, another friend joining us as well, so I’m excited about that. But of course, before we get to our guests, we’ve gotta talk about our stories of the week. What do you have?

Albert Cheng: Well, I’ve got an interesting article that I found in The Atlantic by Rose Horowitz. The title is What An Ivy League Education Really Gets You.

Economists have a new theory of why graduates of top colleges have so much career success. And you know, Alisha, I know, uh, the value of higher ed is in question today and certainly the Ivy League institutions have been getting a lot of attention. And of course is this question of why do graduates of Ivy League post-secondary institutions do so well career wise?

And I’m sure you’ve heard of some. Possible explanations, you know? Is it like the name brand with some of these institutions that employers love it, seeing a pen or a Yale or Harvard on a diploma maybe? Or is it just [00:02:00] selection? Is it just, Hey look, these colleges are taking the best and brightest in some sense, and it doesn’t matter where these folks go to college, they just end up doing well anyway.

So it’s not like the institution has any effect or is it the world class faculty at these institutions and the article, what I found interesting is proposing, or at least summarizing another theory, a new one, or maybe it’s not that new to some that others are proposing, which is that what these Ivy League institutions give you is an opportunity to learn how to succeed in an environment that’s filled with the world’s most talented and ambitious people.

In other words, you know, it’s not so much all those other things I mentioned, but hey, you know, doing well in your job later, doing well in life later, and particularly in these really high performing jobs that require a lot out of you, that requires knowing how to work with. People who are similarly talented and ambitious.

And so at least this article is [00:03:00] articulating that theory of, hey, maybe what Ivy Leagues do is immerse you in that kind of environment and give you the preparation to work in those kinds of environments. Anyway, I don’t know what you think about that theory. It’s kind of a new one that I haven’t heard, and I’m kind of curious thinking through, you know, Hey, is that true or not?

But I don’t know what you think about that, but that’s the article I saw.

Alisha Searcy: You know, it’s an interesting one. I think all of those things are probably true. I think about two things. Number one, this is random, but I happen to follow someone on Instagram who all of her posts are about the things that she learned as an Ivy League college student.

Ah-huh. And it’s really about the social networking, social skills. Some will call them them soft skills that she learned. Everything from how do you deal with conflict? You know, how do you build relationships with people? A lot of, again, social skills that really helped her to climb up the ladder in terms of her career, et [00:04:00] cetera.

So it’s really, I find it fascinating and I’ve learned a few interesting things even about how I navigate in political circles. What I also find interesting, to your point, I went to Spelman, which in many circles is comparable to Ivy League. Schools. And so again, there’s this national network that we have in some of the most brilliant people I’ve ever met, our Spelman graduates and have done things, and so I think it’s very similar when I see a Spelman graduate, you know, on an application, on a resume that I’m looking at, it tells me a lot about who this woman is.

Mm-hmm. I know that she’s very well prepared. Even the interns that I had in my office as a legislator. Spelman students always stood out as being the best and the brightest. So I think there’s something to be said about the name, the institution, the social network, where you go to college in some cases can tell you a lot about who a person is and [00:05:00] even how far they might go in terms of their social, political, and career network and access.

Albert Cheng: Interesting. Well, yeah, it’s kind of neat to see different experiences kind of come together to confirm maybe this theory. So maybe, uh, we’ll do more investigation to figure out what’s really the secret sauce. Yes. If any. If anything, exactly.

Alisha Searcy: At the end of the day, it’s all about right, what you know and who you know, and how you leverage that.

I’ve learned that for sure. Well, I’ve got an interesting article. So today of course, we’re talking to some guests about the federal education tax credit and states opting in and we’ve had a number of conversations and the conversations won’t end, and so I thought it would be appropriate to talk about this article that comes from the Texas Tribune and.

I wish I had more time to really dig deep, but this one resonated with me, Albert, for a couple of reasons. Hmm. As someone who does education advocacy every day, I’m a big proponent of public [00:06:00] school choice. I really struggle with this piece, and it’s not because I don’t think parents ought to have options even within the private school system.

I struggle with what it means in terms of our country’s focus on public education. What’s happening federally with the dismantling of the Department of Education, the focus that we’re seeing in terms of even teaching history or black history in school. And so what do all those things have to do with this in particular, this article features two black leaders in Texas, one who supports ESAs.

He’s a former charter school leader. He’s a pastor of a church, and you have a woman who is a public school teacher. And you know, you could kind of tell where they’re gonna go, where they lie.

Albert Cheng: Yeah.

Alisha Searcy: Their beliefs here. And so as the two of these individuals are kind of their arguments, if you will, or going back and forth in this article, it really points out the [00:07:00] challenges that exist here.

The pastor and the article is talking about how he says that you can’t give him an example where public schools have done right by black children in this country. Now, I think that’s quite an overgeneralization. I, I would actually disagree with that, but I understand his point that as a whole, public education has not done what it’s supposed to do.

I would argue for all children, but certainly black children. But then you have this other argument on the other side that. There’s a promise in this country that if you believe in the public good, if you believe in public education, it ought to serve all kids. And when you take money away from those institutions, you are further moving away from that promise.

The article does not come with a conclusion, but I think it raises some really good points to help people understand both sides of this issue. Why there’s so much concern about protecting public education and making sure that access is there for all kids, right? Because if you go to a private school, you’re not gonna, [00:08:00] they don’t have to follow.

Federal laws, they can discriminate in terms of religion, in terms of the list goes on. Public schools can’t do that. And so these conversations are really important. I think all of us want kids to have access to a high quality education, whether it’s private. Public, whatever it is. I think where we are, and I, and I’m sorry that I’m taking so long with this, but it’s such an important conversation and important points of view that I think this article does a tremendous job of going deeper and having a good understanding of why there are such a division and why we have to keep these conversations going and why this conversation today is really important.

Albert Cheng: Yeah, yeah. Yeah. No, Alisha, I mean, I appreciate you. Hi, Linda. The article, I mean, it’s, it’s fascinating to. See, I mean, look, I imagine these are two folks that care about very similar things of wanting to do right by kids and they have differences in opinion about how that’s best done, you know, and I appreciate you weighing in too.

And you know, I think listeners probably know that I’m [00:09:00] more friendly. It’s private school choice than you are and, and you know, like I think you and I. Can often have these kinds of conversations to better understand the issue as well. So, you know, and I appreciate your perspective. I just gotta say, and as someone that does some work, also serving and helping particular private schools, you know, some of these issues that you raised, you know, I’ll be honest that these are things that I think about too, and I’m for trying to.

Build the institutions that are gonna serve all of our kids better. You know, the world, you know, when we, you and I pass, uh, that we’re gonna have enduring institutions that serve generations to come. And you’ve touched upon some issues that I think folks like myself who really are big fans of private school choice do need to think through as well.

So, uh, appreciate you bringing up some of these points.

Alisha Searcy: Sure. And I, and I appreciate you saying that. And as I said, you know, my daughter went to a private school for a couple of years. I understand it and want parents to have options. I’m okay that there’s a private school and you, you know. [00:10:00] Whether it’s a religious school or single gender, whatever it is, as a private institution, I think you should have the right to do that.

And so the conversation continues, but I, I appreciate what you just said in terms of the work that you do, and I think that’s what’s important is asking the questions and continuing to push ourselves on what this looks like from policy to implementation.

Albert Cheng: Yeah. Yeah. Well said. Well, looking forward to this conversation.

Yes. Um, yeah.

Alisha Searcy: So coming up, we’ve got with us Jim Blew, who is the co-founder of the Defense of Freedom Institute, and Katie Everett, who is the executive director of the Lynch Foundation. So stick around.

Albert Cheng: First we have Jim Blew, who is a co-founder of the Defense of Freedom Institute. Previously, he served as the assistant secretary for planning, evaluation, and policy development at the US [00:11:00] Department of Education. Prior to joining the department, Jim advocated for education reform across the country. His roles included serving as director of the 50 can Affiliate Student Success, California National President of Students First and National Director of the Alliance for School Choice, and its predecessor, the American Education Reform Council.

Jim also helped guide the Walton Family Foundation’s K 12 reform investments for nearly a decade before committing himself full-time to education reform. Jim worked at political and communications firms in New York and California. He holds a bachelor’s degree from Occidental College and a Master’s in Business Administration from the Yale School of Management.

Alisha Searcy: Katie Everett is the executive Director of the Lynch Foundation. She’s seen the foundation grow from 40 million to 130 million. Katie’s overseeing the investment of over $175 million in support of over 350 social change organizations, including some of the [00:12:00] earliest seed investments in Teach for America Partners in Health and the Posse Foundation.

She’s also an active member of the Philanthropy Roundtables Catholic School Philanthropy Working Group. In 2012, the Boston Business Journal honored her as one of the top 40 under 40 innovators and leaders in the city of Boston. In 2014 15, Katie served on Governor Charlie Baker’s education transition team.

She graduated from Notre Dame Academy, received her bachelor’s degree from Boston College, and completed executive programs at the Stanford University School of Business and the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Jim and Katie, welcome to the show. We’re happy to have you both back.

Jim Blew: Happy to be here.

Katie Everett: Yeah, me too. Thanks for having us.

Alisha Searcy: Of course, Jim, I’m gonna start with you. In the first Trump administration, secretary DeVos’s, USAID proposed a national education tax credit program. Would you discuss how the wider contours of the proposed federal education tax credit from Trump [00:13:00] set up the framework for the one established by Congress and the White House?

Jim Blew: It’s a great question, Alisha. It’s actually one continuum of an effort. Secretary DeVos introduced what we call the Education Freedom Scholarship bill. In 2018, and that bill went through several iterations until what finally passed in the Budget Reconciliation bill in July, often called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

The major differences were that Secretary DeVos’s bill was again, a federal tax credit for donations to scholarships, but it was organized in a way that governors. Would opt out if they did not wanna participate. It went through a phase where it was called the Educational Choice for Children Act during the Biden years where there was no involvement at all with the governor, and that made a lot of sense because this, after [00:14:00] all, is a private transaction between a donor and a family that would.

More educational options, and there was an intermediary placed in there, an SGO, you know, that is not a new concept. There have been states using scholarship granting organizations literally since the late nineties. I think the first program was Arizona in 1998. Then at the final moments of getting the bill passed, they made some other major changes to the bill, and the major one was that governors had a role.

Again, they were reinserted not to opt out, but literally to opt in. And under the new provisions, governors have the right to say whether children in their state will be allowed to get these K 12 scholarships. These are scholarships for all children. The children in public schools, charter schools, private schools, and even home schools.

There are other major changes in the bill. We can go through those, but that’s [00:15:00] sort of the arc of the eight year history of the bill.

Alisha Searcy: Thank you, Katie. Approximately 28 states have either officially opted into or indicated their intention to participate in the federal education tax credit program, and you’re leading an effort to have the Blue State of Massachusetts opt-in.

Could you share with us what your main arguments are in favor of, as well as what you see as the key barriers to Governor Healey of Massachusetts participating?

Katie Everett: Sure. I think the main arguments for Massachusetts to opt in and participate is it’s just an incredible opportunity to keep tax dollars in our state.

Massachusetts is a prominent donor state to the federal government. We frequently rank among the top states that send more federal. Taxes than we receive back in federal spending in excess of like $40 billion we’re sending to DC that we’re not getting back. It’s just an incredible opportunity to keep more resources [00:16:00] here in our state, and it allows and grows access and opportunity for all students.

As Jim had mentioned, it’s students. All students are eligible in grades K to 12, and the scholarship awards can be used for books, supplies, tutoring, ed technology, transportation, outta school time, providing all sorts of opportunity and access for every single one of our K 12 students in the state of Massachusetts.

And frankly, in a time of financial crisis that our public school systems are experiencing. We just. Saw in the paper last week that Boston Public Schools, our largest public school system in the state, is gotta lay off around 400 teachers and administrators and staff members. It’s a time of crisis.

Schools are cutting mental health and counseling services outta school time providers or losing state and local funding. And this is just an extraordinary revenue stream. It’s just common sense. It’s so practical [00:17:00] and pragmatic, and we just think it’s a great opportunity for Massachusetts. We believe that the key barriers or obstacles are misinformation.

Folks just don’t understand it. They don’t understand that this is a federal law, that all federal taxpayers are eligible, and Massachusetts governor has the decision to opt in or participate for Massachusetts as a state in order for our students to benefit. If she chooses not to opt in or participate, or if we as a state choose not to participate, that means it’s a loss for our students.

It’s a loss of federal dollars. They will go back. To the federal government or to the Trump administration, and he can, you know, empower his decision making and spend those funds the way he sees fit. Or they can go to states that have already opted in, such as New Hampshire or Florida where so many of our tax dollars and residents are leaving and moving already.

So again, for us, I think we gotta think about the [00:18:00] misinformation, really educate folks on it’s federal law, it’s passed and we have three choices, participate. Send it back to the feds or send it to our neighboring states that so many of our citizens were losing to already. And so we think, you know, the politics aren’t great.

We understand one big, beautiful bill people have aversion to it. But we need to just remind folks that Massachusetts was willing and and excited to accept the workforce, Pell Grants that came with that. And we already have, you know, I think six or eight community colleges that are participating. You know, it’s short term funding for community colleges to have apprenticeship programs in healthcare technology and clean energy.

Our state is actually partnering with them and created a registered apprentice tax credit at the state level. We are already accepting things out of this one big, beautiful bill. And I really just think politics could be one of the challenges that we’re facing here in a democratic state, and we just hope [00:19:00] that leadership will take a very pragmatic approach to this decision making.

Alisha Searcy: Thank you for that. Jim, some of the broad outlines of the new national education tax credit include a hundred percent non-refundable credit against individual federal income taxes. And I think Katie’s talked about some of this up to $1,700 annually for donations to qualify a scholarship granting organizations and scholarships being used for tuition at private or religious schools, tutoring, special needs services, et cetera.

Can you unpack this a little bit more for us?

Jim Blew: Yeah, and it’s useful to do this because of the misinformation that’s out there about it. First of all, there’s a misimpression from earlier versions of the law that somehow or other, this is gonna be a great boon to very wealthy individuals. And so, let me restate, each individual will be allowed a $1,700 credit against their federal income taxes.[00:20:00]

When they contribute to a scholarship granting organization. That is very helpful in the aggregate, we expect to raise billions of dollars of scholarship money, but it requires a lot of people to step up and say, yes, I wanna contribute $1,700 to an SGO, and essentially that money will be reimbursed through their federal taxes because it is a 100% non-refundable tax credit.

Once the SGO gets the funds and there can be all types of s Gs focused on all types of children, all types of educational expenses, they can bundle the money and provide it to students based on their fundraising. Essentially, they make a call to say, we are going to provide tutoring. To children who are behind in Boston schools, for example.

People would give money to that, and then they decide who their [00:21:00] providers might be and how much money would be paid to each of those providers through a scholarship fund. There are limitless opportunities here. The law is written in a way that in addition to doing tutoring or enhanced academics, we can also.

Use the funds to provide scholarships for special needs therapies. So if a student has never been able to get occupational therapy, for example, it’s never been included in an IEP, even though it’s needed, scholarships can be provided for that. A lot of charter networks are looking at it because, you know, charter schools are open access schools, but sometimes children live far enough away that they may need help with transportation.

So you have scholarships for that as well. And of course, there is the traditional tuition scholarship for people who wanna just attend private schools. And if you’re [00:22:00] deciding to do a micro school or a homeschool and you need help with technology or with curriculum, there can be scholarships for that as well.

We could go on and on with examples, Alisha, but the reality is it is only limited by people’s imagination. Right now we’ll see if Treasury has any restrictions. We do know that it has to be educational expenses that are listed in Coverdale, so you can’t do anything crazy, but we’re looking for SCOs to be quite creative here.

Alisha Searcy: That explanation is very helpful. ’cause you’re right, lot to folks think that it may only apply to private schools or certain things. So thank you for laying out all of the kind of institutions that are eligible.

Jim Blew: You know, Alisha, if you don’t mind, let me just make another point about this. We actually think that the traditional school district foundations are in the best position to raise the most money.

Mm-hmm. For these programs, because they have a lot of [00:23:00] constituents, they have a lot of employees, they have a lot of parents. They have a lot of vendors, and they can go to all of them and say, please contribute $1,700 to our SGO rather than just someone else’s. And just by the sheer numbers, they’re going to outweigh everyone else’s fundraising capacity here.

Alisha Searcy: Makes sense. Okay. Katie, Colorado’s Democratic Governor, Jared Polis, officially opted into the Federal Education tax credit program, which is set to begin in January of 2027. Could you talk to us about Governor Polo’s rationale for participating and what is Leadership can teach other Blue State governors, especially in places like the Northeast, about using this program to benefit poor and minority students trapped in larger urban school districts.

Katie Everett: Yeah, I mean, I can speak to what I’ve known, heard, and read, and with his team that we’ve worked to learn from and who will be participating next week with us here in Massachusetts [00:24:00] as we kick off the coalition. He’s described it as free money and it’s a no-brainer. I mean, these are the words he’s used that brings more resources to his state without using state funds.

It’s a program that helps all kids access tutoring, special needs services, and it’s a tool to be used for innovation. So really to double down on what Jim said is we need to be creative and imaginative and think about. You know, what can be different and new and exciting in education with these resources that are eligible for all our kids?

PUIs has stated that there’s, you know, it’s a zero state resource on the line is what he said. Zero state resources are on the line. It’s a just no brainer. It’s common sense. The program allows the donors to take the a hundred percent federal tax credit. Nothing comes out of his state budget. It only stays in his state.

And he expressed concern that if Colorado didn’t participate, that residents might send it outta state. [00:25:00] To different scholarship organizations, losing opportunity for his kids and the kids in Colorado to participate. And he decided to opt in early and come out in such courageous leadership style because he wants to create the runway for organizations to prepare to follow what the eligible rules and laws will be once announced.

But he wanted to give enough run room in order for more STOs to understand the opportunity and to create more access and availability. To Jim’s point, we have said to the state Superintendent’s Association and others, we wanna have Massachusetts opt in. We wanna have them opt in now so that you can build an SGO to support all our public school kids.

If done right, can you imagine, can you imagine how many resources could be raised for our public school kids if we, if they state all work together and really led on this innovation? I mean, Massachusetts is the foundation of public education. This is an [00:26:00] opportunity for us to lead in a way that we just haven’t been leading.

I mean, this is such an extraordinary time in education with this incredible resource and opportunity. I think Polis was just really courageous and smart and very practical.

Alisha Searcy: Makes sense. Thank you for that, Jim. In recent years, especially after COVID-19 and two, landmark US Supreme Court decisions on private school choice, we’ve seen enormous growth in ESAs education tax credits, and school voucher programs.

Can you talk about the rapid expansion of state led private school choice programs and the key lessons for federal tax credit program drawn from these state driven programs?

Jim Blew: Well, let me restate that. The federal program really is an outgrowth of the state programs that we learned a lot from what some 20 states had already done with these school choice programs, and particularly the tax credit programs.

It is [00:27:00] worth taking a moment to draw out two lessons from that. One is that what we were seeing in the States was a movement toward customization and something that neither Katie nor I have emphasized here, but the SEOs can create their own customized scholarships to meet the exact needs of every student.

We’re so used to in public education. Creating everything around an average or a standard so that everything looks the same, and the STOs actually have the ability to meet the needs of the student. So if you have a special needs student, you can do something different than if you have a student who might be gifted and need a different approach.

That’s lesson number one. Lesson number two for me is around the enormous growth of the popularity of these programs, and I think this is actually a message for. Any governor who would [00:28:00] deprive their students in their jurisdiction from receiving scholarships like this. And again, we’re not talking about purely private schools here.

We’re talking about having the freedom to be able to direct resources for your child, for tutoring or for tuition at a private school, if that’s your choice. And I think that COVID helped everyone in this country understand we’re not doing very well with our K 12 education right now. We know that about a third of our children are failing to learn to read at grade level.

Failing to learn at math. And parents woke up and said, wow, this is not working for us. We need more choices. And I think that’s what’s given the energy behind the state program and then subsequently to the federal program.

Albert Cheng: Katie, I want to jump in here and ask you about the Catholic schools in Massachusetts.

I mean, I don’t know if our listeners know that Massachusetts is the [00:29:00] second most Catholic state in the nation after your neighbor, Rhode Island. There are approximately 32,000 students enrolled in Catholic schools within the Archdiocese of Boston alone, and despite these numbers, the number of Baystate Catholic School students has also plummeted.

By over 60% since the early two thousands. So could you talk about what this federal education tax credit program could mean for the Catholic families and schools in your state and in other blue states?

Katie Everett: Yeah, absolutely. Happy to talk about it. And yes, we have 32,000 students in the Boston Archdiocese alone, and then we have three other diocese in the state of Massachusetts.

Although Massachusetts is larger than all three of them combined, and yet we’ve closed 10 schools in the past few years. And I guess we would say we right-size the ship. You know, we closed facilities, we maintained the same number of students in the schools, although what we are seeing is an [00:30:00] inability to maintain a working class.

Families in the schools where so often historically Catholic schools were founded, you know, to educate those that the public system would not so formally enslaved women, new immigrant families. And so, although still doing that work very well, we’re losing the firefighters kids and the police officers and the nurses.

And frankly, public school teachers have a long track record, or actually legislators in Massachusetts have a real long track record of themselves attending and sending their children to many private schools in the state of Massachusetts. And so what we’re seeing is an opportunity here. To really strengthen the schools to exist in perpetuity.

’cause we’re losing so much ground. It really just is an opportunity to stabilize and take the edge off. You know, none of these schools, I think sometimes our biggest challenge in Massachusetts, when we think of Catholic schools, some folks might [00:31:00] think of some of the higher end, full tuition based private all boys institutions.

They’re forgetting the dozens and dozens of tuition free schools. We have the Kristo Re schools, nativity Miguel schools where we serve, you know, a hundred percent kids who are eligible for free and reduced lunches. And so there’s a opportunity here to engage and retain middle class families who we are seeing, leave our state in droves and really give an opportunity for those folks to engage in the Catholic school system.

Albert Cheng: Thanks for that. And so Jim, I’m gonna turn back to you and I mean, this question is on a topic that might rain on everyone’s parade, but one of the concessions in the process was that governors had to annually submit a list of qualified SGO to the US Treasury Department for their state’s SGO, to receive their tax credited donations.

So this opt-in provision, it’s voluntary for each state. So talk about this opt-in provision [00:32:00] and is it. Really gonna ensure that governors, especially in blue states, where private school choice faces the toughest opposition, simply won’t participate in the federal program.

Jim Blew: Oh, I mean, we’ve already seen that with Governor Polis that it won’t stop Democratic governors from participating in the program.

There are some politics here, Albert, that we just have to acknowledge there are people within the traditional public school system that don’t want to even open the door a little bit to have families be able to afford private school tuition. Particularly the working class families that Katie mentioned, that is a reality.

This was an unnecessary component of the bill that was added at the last minute by the parliamentarian who has to make sure that budget reconciliation bills don’t create new policy. A response to governors not being included at all was to create a policy where [00:33:00] governors had to opt in. It is something that is actually a problem for educational reformers in general, who believe that the primary educator of a child isn’t the state.

The state’s got a secondary role to the parents, and so the bill was originally designed so that it would be a transaction between the parent. The donors with an intermediary of the STOs. So we don’t believe the opt-in was necessary, and I think we will continue to push to get it removed from the bill over the long haul.

But while it exists, you are right. Governors will have to opt in every year, and Democratic governors are under some political pressure from organized special interests, not to. Participate. You know the often that is crystallized as the teacher unions. I can tell you that the teacher unions are not fully unified against the bill right now because they’re seeing [00:34:00] that some of the traditional school districts are out there preparing to raise money for the children that they serve.

This has created a bit of a dilemma for them, and I think that will soften the politics around this. Now, if you’re running for president and you’re a Democratic governor, you probably. Should consider what that means at the national level? Well, I guess I should say, I don’t know many Democratic governors who aren’t running for president.

Alisha Searcy: Right.

Jim Blew: At some point. But if you’re looking at it just from a state perspective, this program is very popular. It’s not gonna affect your state budget. And so the politics of it is like, let’s just let children have scholarships. ’cause if I don’t do that, then children in my state won’t get scholarships.

And the charitable giving will go to another state where they will get scholarship. So I think that that Octa has created some partisan politics issues. But at the end of the day, I’ll [00:35:00] be surprised of more than two or three, you know what I would call just vehement. People who are hoping to be present, president of the United States would really decide not to participate in this program. It’s just not in their self interest.

Albert Cheng: Okay, let’s continue talking about politics. And so this is an old issue, but it’s still with us. The Massachusetts Anti Aid Amendment folks might know this as the Blaine Amendments, right? So it’s a provision in the state constitution that prohibits use of public money or credit to aid private, charitable, or religious institutions.

They think most folks, but in case they’re not aware, these amendments are originally rooted in 19th century anti-Catholic. Bigotry. And so that kind of makes it tough for school choice policies, at least private school choice policies to take root in Massachusetts. So could you talk about how the federal education tax credit might be a game changer here?

Right? Is this gonna be a way to circumvent the political and legal barriers that the blame [00:36:00] amendments have in your state?

Katie Everett: It definitely unlocks an opportunity that we will, we do not have here in Massachusetts due to the, I think we have the strictest blame amendments in the country. Maybe rather shocking, right?

Because it’s anti-Catholic. And you just said we are the second largest and then anti-immigrant sentiment, right? Yeah. It was steeped in those two principles. And you know, we’re a sanctuary city and state for crying out loud. So the irony is, should not be lost on any of us. And yeah, I mean, I think it, it finally will unlock some funding for our schools that we think are the greatest social and economic mobilizer.

We actually, we believe deeply that Catholic schools around the country has the greatest anti-poverty movement our country has ever had and has always, you know, served immigrant families and created social and economic mobility here in Massachusetts and all over this. State. So we are grateful and looking forward to this opportunity, but I wanna be real clear here for us, [00:37:00] from our perspective is this is about all kids in Massachusetts.

This is about, Massachusetts has been number one on the NAEP scores for our country for forever, and we’re, we’re losing ground significantly, 7% annually, year over year. We’re losing traction and we are gonna lose the position of academic and intellectual achievements. In Massachusetts, if we don’t get creative and if we don’t move beyond these outdated, antiquated, anti-immigrant attitudes, this is an opportunity for us to sort of reclaim who do we wanna be in Massachusetts?

Do we wanna be a welcoming state where we believe. Kids and all families should have access to resources, and that includes our public school kids and our homeschool kids, and our micro school students and charter schools and private schools. I just think this is a great [00:38:00] opportunity Yes, to overcome these really anti-immigrant.

Outdated antiquated laws that a state like Massachusetts, quite frankly, it’s embarrassing that we still condone and accept, especially when, you know, we’ve seen the Supreme Court’s decisions back in 2020, right. With Espinoza and Montana. Mm-hmm.

Albert Cheng: Mm-hmm.

Katie Everett: That frankly, you know, that violates the federal constitution.

In Massachusetts, I am hopeful that we are aware enough that this is an opportunity to overcome these really anti-immigrant attitudes and sediments that have really constrained and constricted access and availability for so many families and kids.

Albert Cheng: Jim, uh, one more question on the politics of things.

You mentioned some of the politics in Blue States and among Democratic governors, but there are some school choice advocates who are worried about inviting the federal role into private school choice, or that the National Education Tax Credit [00:39:00] program might harm the progress of state driven school choice programs.

So. What concerns do you have about that? I mean, do you have concerns about that? What’s, what do you say in response to those issues?

Jim Blew: So, I have no concerns about the federal tax credit. It won’t directly impact the way we regulate private schools. With this exception, Albert and I should explain why by doing it as a charitable donation.

That goes to an SGO and then to a parent, the government is left out of it. This isn’t a program that is managed by the Department of Education. Or whatever that successor is. It is a tax credit that’s managed by the Treasury Department, so there’s really no opportunity to get your clause into how private schools are operated.

However, this could lead to an increase in the private schools sector. Katie’s already explained like the [00:40:00] private school sector is about half what it was. 30 years ago, but seeing it grow again may cause state lawmakers to wanna regulate private schools into becoming more like traditional public schools now.

I think that would be a mistake, and I believe that state advocates have to be vigilant about this, that the mere existence of more resources for families. To go to private school could cause some legislators, particularly those who are aligned with teacher unions to try and regulate private schools. So I think people have to be aware of that and they have to be vigilant about it.

But I don’t want people mistaking that the tax credit caused that. What caused that is the growth of the private school sector. And as I pointed out as well, it’s not only the private school sector that will grow, it will be actually a lot of supplemental educational opportunities.

Albert Cheng: Well, Katie, we wanna give you the [00:41:00] last word.

So about a week from now on April 15th at the JFK Library, the Massachusetts Educational Opportunities Coalition that you’re leading is hosting an important conversation. On this very federal education tax credit program. So tell us about the event and what it might mean for students and families in your state.

Katie Everett: Yeah, sure. So we are hosting the event four 30 to six 30 at the JFK library, our Democratic presidential library here in Massachusetts on tax day, ’cause this is a tax credit, and we’re having a panel discussion around what this means and what this could mean for Massachusetts and for students from experienced leaders.

And educators from around the country. Our former Commissioner of Education, Jeff Riley, will actually be one of the panelists speaking directly to the benefits that it could bring to public school and all students in Massachusetts. We’re really excited. We [00:42:00] think it is a great opportunity for more people to learn and.

Stands, the facts and opportunity to meet many of the coalition members. We already have about two dozen coalition members who are supportive and we plan to grow that coalition pretty significantly over the next several months as we work with our current governor to encourage her support and participation in this program.

Albert Cheng: Thank you, Katie.

Alisha Searcy: Yes, thanks to you both. This has been a great conversation and enlightening as well. I’ve learned a lot today and I, I needed to, so I appreciate that very much.

Katie Everett: Great. Thank you so much.

Alisha Searcy: Well, Albert, just as I thought it would be quite a riveting conversation yet, but really, really good. I’m glad to have them both and to hear their perspective and just to get an update on what’s happening across the country.

Albert Cheng: Same here. It’s tough to keep track of everything that’s [00:43:00] going on and, and how every state is thinking about things, and so, yeah, appreciate taking the time to hear them out.

Alisha Searcy: Absolutely. Well before we go, wanna give our tweet of the week. It comes from Education. Next it says, but many young Americans grow up in network deserts. Their contacts almost entirely comprise people whose lives look like their own. That isolation is especially acute for first generation college students.

So make sure you check that article out. Very interesting about what’s happening with. Networking and this generation. Albert, as always, great to be with you and co-host this wonderful podcast.

Albert Cheng: Absolutely. Yep. Pleasure to do that every time.

Alisha Searcy: Yep, and looking forward to seeing everyone Next time. Make sure you join us.

Next week we’ll have Dr. Kerry Ingram, who is a senior fellow at Discovery Institute and director of the Institute’s American Center for Transforming Education. And the senior fellow at Independent Women’s Forum, [00:44:00] everybody, have a great week and we’ll see you next time.